B. BASAVALINGAPPA Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA SESHADRI ROAD, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as a Foreman in the B. D T. College of Engineering, Davangere, a Government of Karnataka Institution, drew a sum of Rs. 3,928 as advance under Leave Travel Concession Rules to make a trip with the members of his family from Davangere to Srinagar and back. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled to second class railway fare for the journey for each member of his family including himself, It is also admitted by him that that he did not performed the said journey for the purpose of which he drew the advance, due to unavoidable circumstances. Thereafter wards repeated reminders were given to him. On Nth Nov. 1983 a reminder was given that the amount draw n by the petitioner should be recovered from him. That reminder was by telephonic talk between the Administrative Officer 2nd Respondent and the Principal of the College of Engineering against that the petitioner appears to have (sic) representations explaining the reasons for which he could not make the journey; that he had drawn an amount less than the amount which he was entitled to and therefore the reminder of the sanction to perform the trip would not arise. Despite such representation on 26th Nov. 1983 the Administrative Officer of the Directorate of Technical Education- 2nd respondent has issued a letter by which he has informed the principal of the college that the advance drawn in accordance with the Rules is required to be returned when no travelling allowance bill has been admitted within three months after the date of completion of the journey and in that circumstances the Administrative Officer 2nd respondent has directed the principal to take action. What action the principal has taken is not before the Court except the indication made in the impugned letter at Annexure-E to the petition. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to quash Annexure-E the said letter. I do not think this court should treat that as an order which calls for interference. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner drew the advance and did not utilise the amount for the purpose for which it was drawn. In such cases, notwithstanding the difficulties the petitioner and his family might have had at the relevant time in not performing the journey the respondents are duty bound to recover the said amount from the pay of the petitioner. Therefore, this court cannot interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this writ petition is rejected. Petition dismissed.